Guest Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 Nope, wrong again. The mundane always have an advantage over the exotic. I would be more skeptical if you claimed a zebras were in your backyards than if you claimed elk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 ^^^^Nope, sorry. Your skepticism wouldn't matter if I'd seen a zebra in my backyard. OK, done playing. Back to the OP, which says: don't accept what any scientist tells you about ANYTHING...that isn't based on evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 And your claiming to have seen a zebra wouldn't make it true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 More cap letters, DWA. That might just do it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 You could try glasses. Just sayin'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottv Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 Hello, most if not all national parks, national forests, undeveloped military lands etc, have biologists/teams of biologists employed by the managing agency (directly or contracted) doing various projects. Many do population monitoring of the game species or endangered species. There is an older thread here about the cascades carnivore project and their trail cameras, this project is not unique. You can also add in university professors and grad students. Trail cameras, night surveys, daytime surveys for whatever walks, crawls, swims, flies or burrows. With the exception of some of the big name parks (Serengeti, Okavango delta, Bwindi forest) most African parks (especially Congo) don't get anywhere near this amount of research. Yes you do run into biologists that are the stereotypical lab coat geek who is terrible in the field. However alot of biologists are very good in the field and are interested in all wildlife and not just their research species. They can track, know the birds, identify trees and definitely notice other species while doing field work......like 8 feet tall bipedal apes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted April 20, 2014 Share Posted April 20, 2014 We've gone over here, many times, why the only people with scientific background who report sasquatch do so the way everyone else does - anonymously, to sasquatch websites. Understand that your position is: if someone identified as a scientist says he saw a bigfoot then they're real. There's no way a layman can make a mistake on this animal, let alone a scientist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottv Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 uhhhh...no, that's not my position. I did not state it clearly, sorry for that (former girlfriends can go on at great lengths on this ability). I was thinking about physical evidence. Tracks, scat, hair and especially trail camera photos. Field biologists, to the best of my knowledge (which could be limited) have not identified clear physical evidence that a bipedal ape occurs in North America. The contention here is that bigfoot has not been "discovered" by biologists because of a lack of funding and interest. I contend that there are many well funded projects in what is considered prime bigfoot habitat and that none of these projects have documented a population of bipedal apes. While said projects are not specifically looking for bipedal apes my opinion is that the methods they use would identify the existence of such a population. This would then lead to specific studies (vast understatement) on bigfoot. To illustrate my point, please punch this title into google: "Differential Use of Trails by Forest Mammals and the Implications for Camera-Trap Studies: A Case Study from Belize" They talk about trail width, age and seasonality being very important for photo rates of jaguars and pumas and their prey species, Jaguars and many prey species are much more likely to move off trail or only across trails than pumas. So the photo rates of jaguars/prey species, when trail cameras are only placed on trails, will not be indicative of the number that are actually there. However the trail cameras still document that jaguars and prey species are present. I feel that while inidiviuals can hide, populations cannot. I honestly would love to be wrong about this and have an ape population in North America. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 What I'm saying is: I don't think a biologist who wanted to keep his job would report bigfoot evidence if he found it; and what I have heard from, among others, wildlife biologists John Mionczynski and John Bindernagel seems to back me up. I just can't trust people to report objectively on something that the culture simply doesn't believe is real. Too big a tide to buck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roguefooter Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 ^Is that why wildlife biologist Bindernagel has always been actively out searching for Sasquatch? because he's afraid of his job? What about the wildlife biologists that are self-employed and don't have to worry about any job security? I just can't trust people to report objectively on something that the culture simply doesn't believe is real. Which would include the majority of the general public, yet somehow you trust those reports are real. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 ^^ LOL. Irony and contradiction seem to follow DWA like a dark cloud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 Umm yeah, I'm sure if you are an independent biologist (Read: Graduate Student really in need of gainful employment in your chosen field), your percentage bet is to include "Sasquatch Researcher" on your resume. Got it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 I don't know about that. It's an impression that you and DWA, in particular, seem quite fond of portraying, but do you have anything really to back it up? I can see from Linkedin, that Leila Hadj-Chikh received her Phd in 2003 and was listed as a project scientist for the Erickson Project from 2005 to 2010. She also wrote the forward to one of Bindernagels books. She would seem to be an example of someone who held an interest in bigfoot from her early days. I don't suppose that you have specific examples to support your assumption do you? I would imagine not. It's not really the type of assumption that is easy to support with actual documented cases, is it? I suspect that is why it is a favorite by some folks here. All you have to do is say it, you don't need to demonstrate it. In fact, in the case of Dr.Meldrum, who has recently made full tenured professor, we have more examples that seem to contradict your assumption. So other than, say, your "gut feeling" that your assumption is correct, do you have anything to support it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 I dunno Dmaker.....the case for lack-of-proof-is-equal-to-proof-of-non-existence seem to be very much alive and well here. I just thought I'd join in and get me some of that ! Hmmm....is this how it feels? Yeah, I get it. Niiiiiiiice. Does make things a whole lot simpler, does it not? :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 So...that's a no then? Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts